Quashed

Manoj Kumar v. the State & Ors.

Delhi HC8 May 2017CRL.M.C./1329/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed an FIR under Sections 354/323/506/34 IPC and proceedings pursuant thereto. The court held that since the parties voluntarily settled the dispute without coercion, continuing the proceedings served no useful purpose and was against the interest of justice. The petitioner was directed to deposit costs.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 708/2013 and proceedings pursuant thereto quashed; petitioner to deposit ₹10,000/- with Bar Council of Delhi Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Fund within two weeks.

Manoj Kumar Vs the State & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

23# $~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 1329/2017 MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. S.P. Mishra, Advocate with petitioner in person.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms. Rajni Gupta, APP for the State with SI Sandeep Yadav, PS Mehrauli. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in person.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

¶7

O R D E R % 08.05.2017

¶8

By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 708/2013 under Sections 354/323/506/34 IPC registered at PS Mehrauli, Delhi on the complaint of Respondent No.3 and the proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that the parties have settled the matter.

¶9

Learned APP for the State on instructions submits that initially charge sheet was filed keeping Pawan as an accused in Column No.11 and the petitioner Manoj was kept in Column No.12. Since settlement was arrived at, Pawan filed Crl. M. C. No. 233/2016 for quashing of the FIR which was quashed qua him vide order dated 2^nd August, 2016. However, after passing of the order dated 2^nd August, 2016, the petitioner who was kept in Column No.12 has since been summoned. Thus the present petition seeking CRL.M.C. 1329/2017 Page 1 of 2

¶10

quashing of FIR on behalf of Manoj. She further states that in the above noted FIR, the respondent No.3 is the complainant and his wife respondent No.2 the only victim.

¶11

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are present in Court and are identified by the Investigating Officer. They state that they have settled the matter with the petitioner and do not wish to pursue the above noted FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶12

Petitioner who is present in Court and is identified by learned counsel affirms the statement of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

In view of the fact that the parties have amicably resolved their differences of their own free will, volition and without any coercion and no useful purpose will be served in continuance of the proceedings, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the abovementioned FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto. There is no legal impediment in quashing the FIR in question.

¶14

Consequently, FIR No. 708/2013 under Sections 354/323/506/34 IPC registered at PS Mehrauli, Delhi and proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of ₹10,000/- with the Bar Council of Delhi Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Fund within two weeks.

¶15

Parties have signed the order sheet in acknowledgment of their statements made before this Court.

¶16

Petition is disposed of. Order dasti.

¶17

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

¶18

MAY 08, 2017/‘vn’

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

CRL.M.C. 1329/2017

Manoj Kumar v. the State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. the State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Gupta Vs State

Vipin Rai & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Suraj Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Isha Rashid Vs State

Arvind Kumar & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Kamal Solanki Vs State of NCT of Delhi